The Inter-NGO Panel on Climate Change

Sven Teske, renewable energy director at Greenpeace International, and a lead author of the report, said: “This is an invitation to governments to initiate a radical overhaul of their policies and place renewable energy centre stage. On the run up to the next major climate conference, COP17 in South Africa in December, the onus is clearly on governments to step up to the mark.”

Isn’t it a bit odd, that a policy director of Greenpeace should be a lead author of a report? Isn’t the IPCC supposed to start from a policy-neutral perspective? After all, what would we make of such a report if it found the opposite way, and it turned out that one of its lead authors was a director of a free-market think-tank that stood accused of being funded by Exxon?

Teske doesn’t appear to be named as a lead author of the new IPCC report. Maybe he didn’t have anything to do with the SPM. The following people, did, however, and I’ve located their profiles online.

Each of these authors, work, as far as I can tell, in one or more of four sectors: private energy and policy consulting; non-governmental organisations; academia, and government/intra-government. Their jobs are very much attached to renewable energy. That is to say that, of all the people in the world, it would hard to find a group less critical of ‘renewable energy’. It is precisely as if oil executives were to decide about the future of renewable energy, and had come up with the opposite outcome.

It is no surprise that environmental bureaucrats believe renewable energy can power the world. It is no surprise that environmental economists and other social scientists with an interest in renewable energy also believe that their research can change the world (and bring in a few research grants and raise their academic profiles at the same time). It is no surprise that renewable energy consultants believe that the world needs the services of renewable energy consultants. And it is no surprise that directors of environmental NGOs are in favour of policies that bring them closer to power.

Cynical? Perhaps… But the point remains that the IPCC is once again being passed off as a policy-neutral research organisation when it is in fact merely a club for people given to a particular view of the world, to further their pre-determined agenda with pre-determined ‘research’.

This is policy-based evidence-making. The IPCC’s report on renewable energy was written by the renewable energy sector.

“This is policy-based evidence-making. The IPCC’s report on renewable energy was written by the renewable energy sector”

And let’s not forget that no less than 5 (1 CLA and 4 LAs) were from the IPCC’s WG III “Technical Support Unit” (TSU). As I understand it, those who are seconded to a TSU become, in effect, the staff support to the Working Group (WG).

Considering that the WG putting this together had only 11 meetings over the three years they took to write this masterpiece (the last of which took place a few days ago), my guess would be that these 5 were charged with the major portion of the writing.** As with the other cast of characters you’ve listed, it’s highly unlikely that any of them would produce anything that diverged from Pachauri’s “vision” for AR 5, which includes:

Climate change needs to be assessed in the context of sustainable development, and this consideration should pervade the entire report across the three Working Groups. … Most governments who have commented on this issue have highlighted the need to treat sustainable development as an overarching framework [emphasis added -hro]

** I say this from several years of experience being the CEO of a non-profit organization (and serving on the boards of others). When the Board wanted a policy or position paper, they would designate a committee (of volunteers) to “do” the work, but more often than not, it was the staff support who did the lion’s share. Notwithstanding the IPCC’s obligatory proclamations of how hard these ‘expert’ volunteers work, I believe it would be quite unusual if – in reality – their practice was any different!

Another interesting “reality” of volunteer WGs and/or committees in action is that the further removed people are from the actual “writing” process, the less likely it is that they will have fully read and understood that to which they put their names and/or are endorsing.

And I believe it’s also worth noting that although this Report has purportedly been “approved by member countries of the IPCC”, I could find no item on the Agenda of either the “11th Session of IPCC Working Group III” (May 5-8) or the “33rd Session of the IPCC” (the first day of which was today, May 10) which would indicate that such an “approval” has actually transpired:

Mark Lynas: “This really has got to stop. No campaigners or industry people (those with either an ideological or financial interest) should surely ever be allowed to be IPCC lead authors. Why has this situation been allowed to develop at all?”

I just like the helpful info you supply for your articles.
I’ll bookmark your blog and check again here frequently. I’m moderately sure I will learn many
new stuff right here! Best of luck for the following!

You really make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this topic to be actually something that I
think I would never understand. It seems too complex and
very broad for me. I’m looking forward for your next post,
I will try to get the hang of it!